Evidence for subglacial flooding in labyrinthine channels on Devon Island, Nunavut, Canada

Ruso, Simona F.; Osinski, Gordon R.; Grau Galofre, Anna; Kukko, Antero

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-5667

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5667

Preprints

13 Jan 2026

| 13 Jan 2026

Evidence for subglacial flooding in labyrinthine channels on Devon Island, Nunavut, Canada

Simona F. Ruso, Gordon R. Osinski, Anna Grau Galofre, and Antero Kukko

Abstract. Subglacial drainage systems route glacial meltwater to the ice margin either via efficient, channelized systems or inefficient, distributed systems. The interplay between channelized and distributed drainage systems varies spatially and temporally, governed by meltwater supply and abundance, bed roughness and topography, ice sliding velocity, and ice driving stress. Subglacial channel formation and evolution are therefore affected by variability in meltwater supply to subglacial conduits, and these changes may be recorded in the geomorphology of these channels. The formation of subglacial bedrock channels is attributed to higher energy and/or higher magnitude discharge events, such as the episodic release of meltwater in the form of either subglacial or proglacial floods, in comparison to the energy or discharge required to excavate channels in soft sediment. Common features of landscapes modified by meltwater floods include anastomosing channels and multiple erosive surfaces, wherein the pre-existing drainage system is inundated, resulting in the incision of new channels that reconnect downstream. Devon Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago was covered by the thin (<1000 m), cold-to-polythermal based Innuitian Ice Sheet over the course of at least three glacial expansions during the last glacial cycle. Despite this, there is a conspicuous lack of typical glacial landforms, and instead, the inland plateau region of the island is incised by ubiquitous subglacial and lateral meltwater channels. Some sets of bedrock subglacial channels on Devon Island bear a striking resemblance to the morphology of The Labyrinth in Antarctica, which formed by the episodic drainage of a subglacial lake. The characteristics, topology, and morphology of these channels, referred to as 'Labyrinthine channels' hereafter, together with two subglacial channel networks make the focus of this study. We argue that, within both labyrinthine and other subglacial channel networks on Devon Island, the presence of distinct erosional surfaces, anastomosing channels, and profile slope breaks imply formation by short-lived locally intense episodes of erosion. The presence of well-defined erosional surfaces suggests floods progressively incised into lower elevations where meltwater was captured by pre-existing or incipient channels. Moreover, steep contacts between erosional surfaces, termed here as "slope breaks", are similar to fluvial knickpoints and hanging valleys found in other notable landscapes caused by flooding, such as the Channeled Scablands, possibly indicating channel headward erosion in response to pulses of intense erosion. Overall, we suggest that the presence of discrete erosional surfaces implies multiple flooding events, and that changing flow conditions during these events are evidenced by slope breaks. Multiple erosional surfaces, scabland-type landscapes, anastomosing bedrock channels, and hanging valleys with steep slope breaks are not consistent with ice marginal melt, demanding large discharge conditions and pulses of activity, and pointing at subglacial rather than marginal or proglacial environments of formation. This work aids in enhancing the current understanding of the role and dynamics of meltwater drainage systems operating under the cold-to-polythermal based Innuitian Ice Sheet, perhaps shedding light into its retreat dynamics, and bolstering the interpretation of glacial dynamics on Devon Island.

Received: 14 Nov 2025 – Discussion started: 13 Jan 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Simona F. Ruso, Gordon R. Osinski, Anna Grau Galofre, and Antero Kukko

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5667', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Feb 2026
The manuscript by Ruso et al. is an intriguing look at channel networks on Devon Island. The paper begins with a solid review of the literature on subglacial meltwater and channels, folding in proglacial examples with similar morphology to their study site. There is a variety of interesting and detailed measurements of the channels with limited ground truthing. The distinction between ice-marginal vs. subglacial channels could be stronger, and the text could be written more efficiently by deleting much of the commentary. Lastly, there could be more discussion on the longitudinal profiles and whether they make the case for a subglacial origin for the channels. Abstract is quite long and the text is very wordy with too much commentary and use of personal pronouns, in my opinion.
Major comments
Map also at least one lateral meltwater channels system to better distinguish between ice-marginal vs subglacial channels. Are they morphologically the same as modern ice marginal channels forming around the ice cap? Do penultimate marginal channels become subsequent subglacial channels?

An examination of the satellite imager over this area of Devon Island and on your Figure 8 reveals the flat lying bedrock stratigraphy of different tones/colors suggesting mesas. Are these visible on the Arctic DEM and could this natural stepped topography be an explanation for your erosional surfaces. The stepped topography indicates differential bedrock resistant to erosion, could resistance to erosion by different bedrock units also explain the slope breaks in the channeled areas, and a reason for the knickpoints within the channels? If so, is there any particular relevance to them other than they are frozen in time, and during the next glacial cycle their formation will resume with new flooding events? The Fig. 12 model is somewhat misleading for how you propose the erosional surfaces formed. Do the channels originate on a flat surface? In step ii) the implication is broad areal scouring to generate the surfaces. On Fig. 2 the scouring appears restricted to channel formation only. Placing your high resolution DEMs onto the regional DEM would help the viewer understand the surround topography better.

Section 5.2 is speculative considering that fluvial processes used as examples are from warm-based ice sheets (FIS), there doesn’t appear to be any modern fluvial activity in the study areas (ignoring melting from nivation hollows), and the slope breaks inside and outside the channels may well be a product of varying resistive properties of the flat-lying bedrock. This section could be shortened to one paragraph that lays out multiple working hypotheses for the slope breaks.

There is a surprising lack of bedload within the channels, beyond a single mentioned of rounded cobbles (ln 273). Why might this be? Do ice-marginal channels contain bedload? Does the lack of bedload, which would be expected to be generated within a bedrock erosional channel, suggest stream power greater than the largest clasts that could form from eroded bedrock. What might a discharge hydrograph curve look like? Discharge estimates?

Minor comments:
The abstract is very long.

Many instances of paragraphs and sentences beginning with ‘These’ or ‘Those’, and sometimes it is uncertain what is being referred to.

There is an inconsistent use of expressing range between two values. Use an en dash rather than hyphens, all with or without a space before and after. Similarly (Fig x) (Fig. x) (Figure x). (figure x)—be consistent.

Add spaces between numeral and unit (4 m).

Specific Comments by Line Number.
Ln 13, 14, sentence topic is subglacial bedrock channels that is inconsistent with proglacial channels at end of sentence.
Ln 22, place ‘subglacially’ in front of ‘by’.
Ln 23, unclear what ‘these’ refers to, and remove capital L from ‘labyrinthine’.
Ln 48, Grau Galofre et al. reference year is 2018 in references section, not 2022.
Ln 56, other papers do not argue for time transgressive formation of tunnel channels (Fisher et al. 2022, 2023) in same area as Kehew worked.
Ln 75, hyphenation of cold to polythermal inconsistent within text. Superscript 14 for ¹⁴C, and since 100,000 ¹⁴C years is well beyond limit of radiocarbon dating, perhaps just convert to 100 ka or use marine isotope stage numbers.
Ln 78, provide reference for bedrock once in study area section, and not every time it’s mentioned at the different SG’s. Check capitalization of the rock units.
Ln 87, 88,100, 102: Acronym provided later for IIS, use after first instances, then for every subsequent time.
Ln 97, statement about glacial landforms contradicts line 20 in abstract that there is a conspicuous lack of glacial landforms.
Ln 112, 113, Dyke et al. 2002 and Simon et al. 2015 not included in reference list.
Ln 116, be specific about the glacial erosion features. Are they characteristic of a thawed or frozen bed.
Ln 119, no year for Dyke ref. Who is ‘our’ for ‘our’ work reference? Just the authors on this paper?
Ln 122, no clear what is meant by ‘soil’ is it not fine sediment, or do you mean regolith?
Ln 125, is bedload an indicator between the two types of channels?
Ln 144 missing word, or is ‘as’ to be ‘was’?
Ln 145, Fig. 8B is out of order.
Ln 147, morphology and sedimentology of what? Sort of a repeat of previous sentence.
Ln 154, is the UAV the same one as on line 149?
Ln 157, altitude of 100 m above channel bottom or plateau?
Ln 198, are channels only a meter wide?
Ln 201. Somewhat misleading to use sediment particle sizes for material not transported.
4.2 SG2, it’s interesting that the channels are curvy linear here. Is such a pattern expected subglacially, or more consistent with incision along a retreating ice margin?
Ln 238, what does ‘loosely’ incised mean??
Ln 239, are not the marginal channels incised into bedrock? Sentence needs work as next phrase is confusing.
Ln 244, missing some words after ‘2024’
Ln 248, include more information on the pothole in Fig. 4C. Dimensions etc.
Ln 250, scabland is known to readers from the channeled scabland landscape first described by Bretz. Need to better introduce your use of the scabland word for bedrock slab scabland. Do the slabs have various meltwater sculpted forms on them to give the scab like appearance (grooves, cavettos, sichelwannen, rat tails, etc.)? Features not obvious on Fig 4. If high flow at onset is recorded by the bedrock slab in the bottom of the channel, then channel is pre-existing and little was accomplished by the water.
Ln 279, here you say no channel deposition, but on line 273 you described rounded bedload.
Ln 293, comparison with hanging valleys is fine, but you have knickpoints or hanging channels, not valleys, in the study area, and throughout ms (e.g., ln 453).
Ln 318, don’t see a Fig 6F.
Ln341, ‘funnel-shaped origin’ is not a process but a morphological descriptor.
Ln 375, confusing how drainage can be in two opposite directions.
Ln 428, the lateral meltwater channels are difficult to see in Fig. 10E.
Ln 461, see also Kehew et al., 2009 for example of larger anastomosing channels in sediment / weak bedrock.
Ln 496, 531, terracing rather than layering would be a better description.
Ln 502, 564, cobbles are not large bedload and are easily moved by small streams. Fig 10H does not exist.
Ln 507. Considering that the remnant of the IIS (modern ice caps) are presumably cold based, subglacial floods events are more difficult to imagine especially with thinning ice. How does such an ice cap collapse? Any previous studies on this?
Ln 538-540, confusing sentence.
Ln 556, unclear what ‘their’ refers to. Lakes or channels?
Ln 558, citation not in reference list.
Ln 564, cobbles and incision into bedrock is a weak argument for large discharge. Quantify by what you mean by large discharge. How have discharge calculations been made through the channels? What input data?
Ln566–569, unclear how a cold-based ice sheet over land would suddenly collapse. Moulins and crevasses reopening over same place seems reasonable if driven by subglacial topography. Similar channels are throughout surrounding region so presumably a common process operating.

Figures:
Geographic grids (lat long, UTM) missing from all maps.
Figure 1. black text difficult to read in many places. Use a white line background to make more visible.
Figure 2, use a partially transparent arrow to indicate ice margin recession direction.
Figure 3 and most others, a large range in font sizes. Legend almost unreadable while the text in the symbology box is much too large.
Fig. 4A, white arrows are too faint.
Fig. 12B, the ice surface profile is very misleading.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5667-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5667', Joel Gombiner, 25 Feb 2026

1. Overview
This paper maps and analyzes four bedrock channel networks in central Devon Island. The authors use digital elevation models and field observations to characterize the networks as anastomosing, overfit to the modern hydrological regime, and lacking in normal stream deposits, similar to the Channeled Scabland and the Antarctic Labyrinth. Adverse slopes along channel thalwegs and the presence of hanging valleys, together with the preceding observations and analogs, suggest the channels were eroded during subglacial meltwater floods from an expanded Devon Island Ice Cap or a regional Innuitian Ice Sheet.
This work contributes to a global literature on subglacially eroded bedrock channels, which are a widespread but relatively poorly understood landform across formerly glaciated areas on Earth and Mars. A key strength of the paper is the visualization of high-resolution DEMs, geomorphic mapping, and field photographs that will be useful for investigators working in analogous landscapes. The analysis is thoughtful and considers multiple possibilities of landscape development. Consideration of two additional processes might be helpful: One would be more clearly articulating the case for supraglacial reservoirs for some of the networks (as opposed to subglacial). The other would be considering palimpsest channel networks: for example could a surficial drainage network have first formed under a warmer, wetter climate via runoff on the gently sloping plateau, then later glaciation modified this dendritic network into an anastomosing one via both subglacial, and perhaps some proglacial, meltwater flooding.
Abstract
The abstract is a bit long and hard to follow. One step toward tightening the focus would be to move the background material about subglacial meltwater and erosion (lines 1 to 18) to the Introduction, placing more emphasis on methods and key results, with just enough context to understand the study.
2. Specific comments
Methods
The methods section focuses on data collection and processing, but it might be nice to break out analysis. The authors could start a section 3.3 called something like “Data Analysis” that describes how the mapping was done and how the interpretations were made. The text from 170 to 176 mostly serves this purpose as is, but it might help to put those lines under a separate section heading since they are not so much “Data Processing” as they are “Data Analysis”.
Sediment deposits
The text is focused on the channel morphology and topology, but some readers will be interested in the sedimentary deposits for understanding the nature of the channel-forming or -occupying events. Information on sediments is currently scattered throughout several sections. I see the benefit of associating information about deposits with the relevant channel network, but I would find the text more useful with something like a section 4.5 called “Sedimentary deposits” that captures in one place observations about the deposits associated with the channel networks, for example the rounded cobbles described on line 273 and the “recessive unit” on lines 370 to 375. This would help busy readers and might facilitate interpretations linking together the sedimentary features into a more cohesive picture.
Data availability
Data available upon request from author has a reputation for being an inconsistent way to access data. The authors should consider a data supplement that would include the geomorphic mapping results and other data such as field notes or morphological observations. This would facilitate follow-up studies to build upon the present work.
3. Technical Corrections
Body
Line 20: What are some examples of the typical glacial landforms you are indicating here? Subglacial channels are fairly typical glacial landforms so I am puzzled about the lack of typical landforms, especially given the statement on line 97.
Line 75: The radiocarbon timescale only goes back to about 50 ka, so I’m not sure what 100 14C ka BP means. You could consider converting all ages to ka using IntCal, and/or double check this reference to see what this age is.
Line 97. This contradicts the “conspicuous lack of glacial landforms” in the abstract.
Figure 1. The legend for 1C doesn’t match the figure caption. One is in ka BP and the other is in 14C BP. One is 11 to 14 and the other is 11 to 0.
Line 146-147. Does “lithology, grain size, scale, and morphology” refer to bedrock, deposits, or both? A separate note: tables summarizing these observational data might help the reader understand the results. Finally, this is the only place lithology is mentioned, and dolomite is the only rock type mentioned elsewhere in the text. What were the lithology data like and what was done with these data?
Line 155. Lidar is usually written as a common noun now. So this could be “lidar scans”.
Line 156. Digital elevation models would not typically be capitalized as they're not a proper noun (even though abbreviated as DEMs).
Line 251. Does “right at the onset” indicate onset of events in time, or onset in space (headwaters of the channel network).
Line 258. Does later refer to time or space?
Line 259. On what basis must the water have been sourced from top-down melting of the ice sheet?
Line 270. The morphology of the channel network should probably be described in present tense, since the network is still in place, so “deepened and widened” should become “deepens and widens”. Consistently using present tense when describing landscapes could be implemented throughout the text for consistency.
Line 273. How do you know the cobbles are “glaciofluvially reworked”? This would be stronger if you state the characteristics of the cobble deposit first and then make the interpretation about process.
Line 274. Does this discussion about sediment deposition in relation to subglacial channel networks only refer to SG2 or to all of the four networks analyzed?
Line 295. Global comment: sometimes there is a space after the ~ and sometimes not. I think the standard is ~1 m.
Line 479. The prior sentence talks specifically about channels on the Waterville Plateau associated with the Okanogan lobe, but it’s unclear if this sentence starting on line 479 discusses pro-glacial bedrock channel networks, i.e. the classic Channeled Scabland of the Cheney-Palouse and Telford-Crab Creek tracts, or the subglacial scabland on the Omak and Waterville Plateaus as mentioned in the prior sentence.
Line 502. Figure 10H showing the bedload cobbles seems to be missing.
Lines 520 to 542. Nice discussion of multiple levels of channels and anastomosis.
Line 553. The present text could reiterate the reasoning that meltwater was sourced from supraglacial reservoirs.
Figure 6B/6C. The y axis and axis fonts are too small to read.
References
Capitalization of titles should be consistent. Sentence case (first word and proper nouns capitalized) is a good option.
Line 695. Braun et al. (1999) has a DOI: https://doi.org/10.3189/172756499781821797
Line 698. Bretz (1923) has a DOI: https://doi.org/10.1130/GSAB-34-573
Line 706. Book title is missing the word “Edition” after fourth. Butterworth-Heinemann is the publisher, not the editor.
Line 709. Dalton et al. (2022) has a DOI. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103875
Line 711. DOI is missing a 0. Correct DOI for Das et al. (2008) is https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153360. Unclear what (1979) means next to the journal name.
Line 733. Howard et al. (1994) has a DOI. https://doi.org/10.1029/94JB00744
Line 741. Kamb (1970) has a DOI. https://doi.org/10.1029/RG008i004p00673
Line 745. Pine, Glaciers, and West should be capitalized in title.
Line 757. DOI does not work and it’s unclear if abstract actually has a DOI. Links to abstract on nasa.gov from Google Scholar were not working on 2/21/2025.
Line 775. Nienow et al. (1996) has a DOI. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199610)10:10%3C1411::AID-HYP470%3E3.0.CO;2-S
Line 778. Ó Cofaigh (1996) has a DOI. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913339602000101
Line 794. Shaw (2002) has a DOI. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1040-6182(01)00089-1
Line 801. The reference for Thorsteinsson and Mayr is incorrect. The suggested citation from Canada Department of Mines is as follows:
Thorsteinsson, R. & Mayr, U. (1987). The sedimentary rocks of Devon island, canadian arctic archipelago. Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir, 411, 182. Canada Department of Mines. https://doi.org/10.4095/122451
Line 806. Vandenberghe (1995) has a DOI. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-3791(95)00043-O
Line 807. Van der Vegt et al. (2012) citation is incomplete. This is a chapter in a book called Glaciogenic Reservoirs and Hydrocarbon Systems with editors M. Huuse, J. Redfern, D. P. Le Heron, R. J. Dixon, A. Moscariello, J. Craig. The DOI is https://doi.org/10.1144/SP368.13
Line 815. I think the (1979) after the journal title is erroneous.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5667-RC2
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5667', Anonymous Referee #3, 09 Mar 2026

The manuscript of Ruso et al. expands on previous work of the same team from the same localities (Grau Galofre et al. 2018, The Cryosphere; Ruso et al., 2024), and it is thus a third manuscript based on a relatively small set of landforms. This manuscript adds a new site ‘the Labyrinth’, called after and compared to the set of landforms described in Antarctica by David Sugden in the 1990s. The landform sets SG1 and SG2 (described in Grau Galofre et al., 2018) were interpreted by Ruso et al. (2024) as likely stemming from ‘episodic but locally intense drainage of supraglacial meltwater’. In this manuscript, the landform set ‘Devon Island Labyrinth’ is speculated to have possibly formed by floods from a subglacial lake (the location of which might have been in its close vicinity). The sets SG1 and SG2 are not clearly reinterpreted from the supraglacial lake drainage origin, but the manuscript states that channel anastomosis and slope breaks within the landform sets SG1, SG2, and the labyrinth indicate ‘short-lived, locally intense episodes of subglacial flood erosion’, with comparisons made to the recently inferred subglacial floods in the Okanogan lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet (Gombiner and Lesemann, 2024).

The topic covered is of interest for broader readership of TC due to possible analogs with the studied meltwater dynamics in Greenland and Antarctica. However, in its present form, the text of the manuscript is quite difficult to read and would benefit from further work on the style. I offer a couple of major comments below, followed by a list of minor comments ordered by their line numbers.

Major comments:
The channel morphology descriptions feel possibly too extensive for the main text. The authors might explore other options to retain the information needed for the inferences they make that would allow for shortening the results section of the manuscript.

In the discussion section, the authors should make sure that any possible change of interpretation compared to their earlier work in the same area is more clearly explained and properly argued for.

Minor comments:
‘Labyrinthine’ - small case or capital L?
Abstract: shorten, try to make the text more fluent, it doesn’t read very well in its current form.
L 45 ‘effectively increase effective pressure’ can you rephrase so that it reads better?
L 54 Unclear why tunnel valleys are suddenly mentioned here: this term is somewhat problematic due its unclear formation processes and does not simply link to the channelized/distributed drainage dichotomy described above. Maybe move this sentence after you introduce N channels in the next para.
L 62 Is ‘mega’ needed there?
L 75 ‘during the last ~100 14C ka BP’ cannot you simply write ‘the last 100 ka’? Writing it in radiocarbon years is nonsense because that dating method only reaches to about 45 thousand years. BP also not needed because if you were referring to other 100 thousand year period, you would use kyr instead of ka.
L 76 ‘around our study region’ you haven’t introduced your study region yet, so this geographic localization does not really work.
L 98 You list ‘ice marginal and subglacial drainage pathways’ as an example of landform record. But these are interpretations and not standard terms in glacial geomorphological terminology. It’s perfectly fine to make these assumptions later, but here, in connection to landform record, stick to standard landform terminology.
L 102-103 ‘…cycles of advance and retreat from 115 – 25 ka’ From doesn’t work here. Between fits better.
L 104 If you mention modelling specifically, then refer directly to numerical modelling studies, in addition to the review of Dalton et al. (2022). Is this sourced from Stokes et al. (2012, QSR)?
L106-109 what time period are the min max glaciation scenarios meant for? Is there really such uncertainty for the LGM?
L 110-115 The wording ‘glaciochronological and geomorphological modeling’ is confusing, I would suggest to keep the term ‘modeling’ for truly numerical models. You should also be consistent in the spelling of the word: elsewhere you write it with double L.
L 116 This conflicts with you previous statement of ‘remarkably well-preserved record of glacial and subglacial landforms’.
L 123 maybe rather ‘valley slopes’?
L 138 Introduce the ATV abbreviation
L 144 ‘was’ instead of ‘as’
L 154 No need to spell out and reintroduce the UAV abbreviation, you’ve done that above
L 244 delete the definite article before 2024
Fig. 6 caption: ‘red box’ is not a box. ‘Red polygon’ instead?
Fig. 12 It doesn’t make sense to have the ground layered into three units already in the first and second pair of panels. If you are to describe erosional surfaces, then these are cut into one and the same ground, that should be drawn in one colour shade. The way you depict it makes it look like each flood event erodes into a different lithological/stratigraphic unit.
L 560-563 Long sentence. Can you cut it in two to make it easier to read?
L 574 cross-divide channels are not marked (and are difficult/impossible to see) in Fig. 8A.
L 574-576 While I’m not saying this is the case here, larger proglacial lakes commonly go through a series of different outlets that are controlled by GIA rebound in response to changing ice sheet loading. Your statement thus cannot be phrased as a general rule.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5667-RC3

Simona F. Ruso, Gordon R. Osinski, Anna Grau Galofre, and Antero Kukko

Viewed

Total article views: 368 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
190	150	28	368	14	22

HTML: 190
PDF: 150
XML: 28
Total: 368
BibTeX: 14
EndNote: 22

Views and downloads (calculated since 13 Jan 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2026	93	59	13	165
Feb 2026	47	42	10	99
Mar 2026	50	49	5	104

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 13 Jan 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2026	93	59	13	165
Feb 2026	47	42	10	99
Mar 2026	50	49	5	104

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 358 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 358 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 22 Mar 2026

Short summary

We describe the morphological characteristics of anastomosing (labyrinthine) bedrock channels to enhance the current understanding of subglacial meltwater dynamics of the Innuitian Ice Sheet. Our work reveals a morphological similarity between labyrinthine channels and other landscapes modified by glacial floods. We argue that the presence of anastomosis, distinct erosional surfaces, and longitudinal profile slope breaks imply formation by short-lived episodes of erosion associated with floods.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0